Studies and Perspectives – ECLAC Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean

Collection:

ECLAC Series

DESCRIPTION

As a preliminary phase of action in response to the ECLAC resolution which calls for greater inclusion of the associate members in the work of the Commission, this study sought to accomplish three outcomes.

Firstly, the study explored the common development challenges of the non-sovereign associate members (AMs) of ECLAC which served as impediments to the economic and social development of the AMs, and identified priorities which fostered and advanced their development aspirations.

Secondly, in light of the recent incremental changes in the political status that had occurred in many of those territories, affording them greater autonomy and freedom to independently engage with regional neighbours on issues of common interest, the study mapped strategic options that were available to enhance their level of integration with regional and international organizations active in the Caribbean subregion.

Moreover, the study documented the development mechanisms that could be leveraged to facilitate the continued development of the AMs, and proposed opportunities for enhanced collaboration through South-South cooperation and other collaborative mechanisms with neighbouring member States.

Finally, while acknowledging that the AMs shared common needs, including challenges related to climate change and natural hazard vulnerability, heavy reliance on fossil fuel, and limited institutional capacity, the study recognized that their individual circumstances were unique.

In that regard, the recommended actions took that into account, exploring options for the design of a strategy of programme support to accelerate their economic and social progress. Importantly, the study identified opportunities to further integrate the AMs into ECLAC’s programmes of development support.

15 August 2017

HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — Gov. Eddie Calvo approved a letter addressed to the United Nations requesting a visiting mission by the United Nations, ahead of a U.N. Fourth Committee meeting in October.

“Despite Guam’s being one of the 17 non-self-governing territories recognized by the United Nations, our administering power, the United States, has yet to facilitate a visiting mission to our island,” the letter reads. Calvo agreed to sign the document at a Commission on Decolonization meeting ...

Commission members also requested the inclusion of an appendix detailing recent developments in the struggle for decolonization, such as a ruling by Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam, in favor of Arnold “Dave” Davis, which deemed the island’s prospective plebiscite unconstitutional; and the subsequent appeal by Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson.

“While the court ruling currently hinders the ability of the native inhabitants of Guam to conduct a plebiscite on the island’s political status, we feel a visiting mission will draw attention to Guam’s current obstacles in achieving self-government,” the letter further states.

The Fourth Committee of the U.N. meets each October to take up the issue of the non-self-governing territories. Commission members encouraged Calvo to attend this year’s meeting to emphasize the island’s request for such a mission.

“This year is important because there is certain language in the Guam resolution which is far more critical about the U.S. militarizing Guam and interfering with the process of decolonization through the Davis case,” said commission member Michael Bevacqua. “It is important that we use that language to build a strong case for more international engagement about Guam, and in particular convince the U.N. to send a visiting mission to Guam to help expose our plight to the rest of the world.”

Calvo likewise expressed a desire to expedite the sending of the letter, so that international processes of approval can begin “as soon as possible,” he said.

“He’s planting an important seed,” said commission member Victoria Leon Guerrero.

The Commission on Decolonization also discussed the possibility of the creation of a curriculum writer position to spearhead efforts to bring political status education to Guam Department of Education classrooms as Guam edges closer to a long-delayed vote on self-determination.

“A DOE curriculum wouldn’t be too difficult to create, since all of the information is already there,” commission member Lisa Natividad said. “But we need someone who can compile and adapt the data to suit the needs of different grade levels.”

13 August 2017

The U.S. flag can be found all over Guam. It can be easy to forget that just because this well-known configuration of red, white and blue colors flies over Guam, it doesn’t mean Guam is a part of the United States.

We know this because there is over a century of court cases that reinforce this. We know this because even in the recent ruling of the Davis case, Justice Francis Tydingco-Gatewood argued while some of the Constitution should apply to Guam, other parts shouldn’t.

We also know this because as more than one non-voting delegate has reminded me, their role in Congress is often to remind Congress about the territories and its control over them.

We know our relationship to the U.S. and the rest of the world is defined by a broad, gray sea of inclusions and exclusions. Sometimes Guam is allowed to participate in international or regional forums, sometimes it isn’t. The same ambiguity persists at the national level.

Because of this lack of a formal or stable place within the international or national systems of governance and recognition, the concept of solidarity is of critical importance. Without a formal place, you are invisible, without direct power over the structure around you. There are ways you can fight for power, but solidarity is an important part of changing your invisibility or your lack of visibility, and therefore lack of relevance of standing, into something different, something more strategic — something from which a campaign to change political structure can be launched.

As the movement for decolonization and independence grows, it’s important we find ways to connect it to other similar movements that can offer lessons or inspirations. This was the case in the past, when members of Nasion Chamoru or Organization of People for Indigenous Rights achieved a greater sense of their place in the world through interacting with people who were members of Black, Brown and Red Power movements in the U.S. It was also true in general from Chamorros who traveled to the U.S. in postwar years and felt affinity with African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and Native Americans.

Ignored by world

My last three appearances at the United Nations to testify before the Committee of 24 have reminded me of the importance of solidarity. Those of us who remain colonies, non-self-governing territories, the pieces that still don’t quite fit in the global order, we are often forgotten or ignored by much of the world, including our own colonizers.

Solidarity can be difficult, as our experiences are so diverse and the geographic distance mirrors historical, cultural and political differences between the 17 colonies spread across the Pacific, Caribbean and Atlantic. But the colonies that come to the United Nations and build alliances with nations willing to support their cause can make progress. Those who don’t remain stuck.

This week, Gov. Eddie Calvo and the Commission on Decolonization approved a formal letter to the U.N., requesting it send a visiting mission to Guam to ascertain the status of our quest for decolonization and make clear what impediments the administering power is placing before us.

I offer my thanks to the commission and Calvo for taking this important step in helping build greater international solidarity to support our efforts.

10 August 2017

The historical restoration of Hubert Henry Harrison (1883–1927) calls for a rethinking of the Black radical tradition in the early twentieth century. As a journalist, educator, and community organizer, this “Black Socrates” influenced a whole generation of Afro-diasporic intellectual and political innovation. Thanks to the decades-long and groundbreaking efforts of independent scholar Jeffrey B. Perry, a growing interest has emerged regarding the life and legacy of Harrison, who A. Phillip Randolph called the “father of Harlem radicalism.” Because he remains such an under-appreciated figure, his recovery requires us to expand and reframe multiple histories—including that of the socialist left, the New Negro movement, Garveyism, and the “Harlem Renaissance”—that have marginalized him. Harrison had a critical impact on all of these social movements, and exploring his angle of vision illuminates previously invisible connections between them.

Hubert Henry Harrison was born in 1883 to plantation workers of African descent on the Caribbean island of St. Croix. He obtained a grade school education as well as some religious training in the Anglican Church. Orphaned as a teenager, Harrison managed to relocate to New York City in 1900 thanks to his sister Mary.

At the turn of the century, lynching, segregation, and disfranchisement reigned supreme in the south, while anti-Black pogroms and other mechanisms of white supremacist racial cleansinggave rise to an epidemic of all-white “sundown towns” beyond the traditional south. Though Black life in the Caribbean emerged from a similar history of enslavement, Hubert Harrison’s native St. Croix (like most Caribbean islands) did not have the historical pattern of lynching and Ku Klux Klan-style terrorism that characterized the United States.1 For that reason, the encounter of Caribbean migrants like Harrison with the new regime of violent white supremacy in the United States became a major factor in their political activation.2

07 August 2017

TODAY IN BERMUDA

Press Release

The Minister of Home Affairs the Hon. Walton Brown has issued a new mandate to members of the Immigration Reform Working Group - a mandate which focuses on a 'principles first' approach.

"All laws should be developed or based on sound principles," explained Minister Brown. "That is why the creation of such principles must come before any amendments to legislation are made or even put forward. The principles I want to see embraced when it comes to immigration reform are ones rooted in a sense of justice for all parties within the context of 'Bermudians coming first' while also maintaining a framework that will foster continued growth in the business sector, using a friendly and accommodating approach."

The group, which was formed in April 2016, was previously tasked with proposing amendments to the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956.

In a letter to the group's members this week, the Minister stated the terms of reference for the group as the following:

Continue the work on the survey. It is important to obtain sound statistics in order to make effective decisions. (The survey is designed to collect data on mixed status families).

Recommend the principles by which new policies will effect legislation in relation to: mixed status families; additional categories of Permanent Resident certificates, if applicable; and additional categories of Bermudian status, if applicable.

Produce a final report by no later than October 31, 2017.

"I would like to publicly thank the Immigration Reform Working Group for their participation over the past year," said the Minister. "The group has worked really well together. Their input has been and continues to be invaluable. The work to this point will certainly go a long way in accomplishing the reform of the Immigration Act."

It should be noted that the Minister will no longer be a member of the group, as he had been previously. All other members will remain the same.

Once the report is completed by the deadline of October 31, the Ministry will then launch a rigorous, island-wide consultation process with the public, the Opposition Party and various stakeholder groups, which will last for three months, concluding in the New Year.

"We want to give the public a fair amount of time to consider the principles put forward by the working group as well as other issues related to immigration reform inclusive of the work permit policy," said the Minister. "The question of immigration reform has been a challenging one, with many distinct groups effected by it. Our intention is to create a truly inclusive and collaborative approach to get the best fit for Bermuda. I look forward to an engaged public on this matter."

Only after this extensive three month consultation period will changes to both Legislation and Policy be proposed.

Members of the public may recall that the completion of comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform is one of the items of priority highlighted on the Government's agenda.

***************************************

New home affairs minister Walton Brown has pledged a “truly inclusive” consultation period before introducing immigration reform.

Mr Brown said the Immigration Reform Working Group is tasked with producing a report based on the principles that Bermudians come first, while the business sector is treated in a friendly manner that encourages growth. The group will report by the end of October.

That will be followed by a three-month consultation period involving the public, the Opposition and stakeholder groups, before policy and legislation changes are finally proposed.

Brown said in a statement: “We want to give the public a fair amount of time to consider the principles put forward by the working group as well as other issues related to immigration reform inclusive of the work-permit policy.

“The question of immigration reform has been a challenging one, with many distinct groups affected by it. Our intention is to create a truly inclusive and collaborative approach to get the best fit for Bermuda. I look forward to an engaged public on this matter.”

In the statement, Mr Brown announced that he is no longer a member of the working group and has called on the remaining members to take a “principles first” approach.

“All laws should be developed or based on sound principles,” he said. “That is why the creation of such principles must come before any amendments to legislation are made or even put forward.

“The principles I want to see embraced when it comes to immigration reform are ones rooted in a sense of justice for all parties within the context of ‘Bermudians coming first’ while also maintaining a framework that will foster continued growth in the business sector, using a friendly and accommodating approach.”

The group, formed in April last year following public anger over the One Bermuda Alliance government’s pathways to status proposal, had been tasked with proposing amendments to the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956.

In a letter to the group’s members this week, Mr Brown stated the terms of reference for the group would be to continue work on their survey to obtain “sound statistics” on mixed-status families.

The members are also tasked with “recommending the principles” of new policies in relation to mixed status families along with, if applicable, additional categories of Permanent Resident certificates or Bermudian status.

“I would like to publicly thank the Immigration Reform Working Group for their participation over the past year,” Mr Brown added. “The group has worked really well together. Their input has been and continues to be invaluable.

“The work to this point will certainly go a long way in accomplishing the reform of the Immigration Act.”

• This article was amended to reflect that Mr Brown advised the Immigration Reform Working Group to obtain sound statistics on mixed-status families, not mixed-race families as previously incorrectly reported.

The possible resignation of experts was foreshdowed earlier this year after the loosening of the compensation law, as some warned that the experts would no longer be needed because everybody in the wider testing zone was now entitled to claim compensation for their illness.

French National Assembly member, Moetai Brotherson Photo: AFP

A spokesman for the French Polynesian government expressed surprise at the announcement, describing it as brutal.

However, a new local member of the French National Assembly Moetai Brotherson told Radio1 in Tahiti he was not surprised at the decision.

The head of the Moruroa e tatou test veterans organisation Roland Oldham said he would seek talks with the local government.

He pointed to the repeated delays in winning compensation.

France ended its weapons testing in the Pacific in 1996 but refused to recognise any link to radiation-induced illnesses until a law was passed in 2010.

TRANSCRIPT

RICHARD TUHEIAVA: There are two new provisions in the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations that have been successfully inserted under our initiative, the Tavini Huiraatira. One of the provisions is dealing with the report of the secretary-general of the United Nations on period of nuclear testing in French Polynesia, especially the economical, the environmental and the health consequences of these testings. The second provision was pretty much of importance to us too and it is the assertion of the General Assembly that the Maohi people, the Polynesian people here in French Polynesia were fully and permanently sovereign on the natural resources, including the mineral resources of our ocean, the economic exclusive zone of French Polynesia. On the other hand the work of the administrating power, France , the state of France, at the UN level is really hard and there is still no place for cooperation or dialogue within the work and the debates of the C24 at the moment because France is not showing up. And every time the case of French Polynesia/Maohi Nui is considered at the UN level, the ambassador of France is standing up and moving from the room until the item, the agenda item, is closed.

WALTER ZWEIFEL: What does that mean? That France can stay away forever?

RT: Well it is still the same of what happened once upon a time for New Caledonia/Kanaky. The first years after Kanaky was relisted on the UN list, France did the same and after five or six years the dialogue took place because France came back around the table for the discussion. From our understanding, what we understand is that France is still not acknowledging the fact that we have been enlisted on the C24 list. That is a matter of urgency for us because as long as France is not going to be able to discuss and come for the dialogue that we are waiting for it's not going to be possible to implement decisions concretely on the field if the administering power is not playing the game.

WZ: At the last meeting in the Carribbean there was a delegate from the French Polynesian government suggesting French Polynesia be taken off that list. How successful could that be, that bid to take the territory off altogether?

RT: It's not a new position that has been taken by the local elected government of French Polynesia. I would just mention that when French Polynesia/Maohi Nui was relisted it was not because the minority or majority of the population of our territory was voting for. The General Assembly of the United Nations back in 2013 took a decision, without a vote, to reenlist Maohi Nui on the list because the international community was assured and aware that French Polynesia was not meeting the criteria of a self-governing territory.

24 July 2017

To the Minister of the
Interior and Kingdom Relations, R.H.A. Plasterk,

President of the 1st Chamber,
Mrs. Broekrs- Knol and members

President of the Second
Chamber Mrs. Khadija Arib and members

Turfmarkt 147

2500 EA Den Haag

Netherlands.

Bonaire, July 20, 2017

Subject: your letter
reference:

2017-0000318708 Appeal Sint Eustatius on the United Nations Charter

Dear Minister Plasterk, Mrs.
Broekrs-Knol, Mrs Khadija Arib and members of the 1st and 2nd
chamber,

We request your attention to
the following regarding your aforementioned letter to Sint Eustatius and our
previous letters directed to your Minister, 1st Chamber and 2nd
Chamber regarding violation of the peoples of Sint Eustatius and Bonaire
Self-Determination and Human Rights:

First of all we would like to
make clear to Mr Plasterk and his administration and colleagues who are
cooperating with Mr Plasterk inhumane views and policies that above-mentioned
rights are inalienable, indivisible and pertains exclusively to the people of
Sint Eustatius and Bonaire and not to the consent or discussion of the
colonizer and the administering power.

Mr Plasterk answers that he
does not respect the United Nations Charter as accorded and co-signed by the
Netherlands in 1945 and will resort to his own
interpretation hereof and further that his non-respect and own
interpretation should not be a surprise.
We feel as it may seems hypocritical that Mr Plasterk does not
understand the main objective the United Nations was founded after the WWII ,
was because of the annexation and occupation of Holland by Hitler, Germany. At
10-10-10, Holland has done the same to annex and occupy the innocent, humble
peoples of Sint Eusatius and Bonaire showing no remorse and respect to
humanity. These inhuman actions are now putting light back on the hidden dark
Dutch colonial history, where we were ahead and making progress in the healing
and reconciliation process and now Mr Plasterk and colleagues are reincarnating
this taboo, where the Dutch were the world cruelest colonizers. We invite Mr
Plasterk and colleagues to view a short summary of “what every Dutch should
know” and most important for Mr Plasterk that has to have a exemplary and
honorable position as Minister representing the Dutch peoples.

We are only hoping after Mr
Plasterk and his colleagues understanding of our common history and past will
realize that they have been miseducated as human beings and the people of Sint
Eustatius and Bonaire also are equally human beings same as them, and to our
salvation and to avoid another humanitarian crisis, Mr Plasterk and colleagues
will interpret the Charter of the United Nations in the correct human context
and not continue in the same inhuman path as their forefathers.

We totally disagree with Mr
Plasterk which states that now Sint Eustatius (same as Bonaire) has the status
as public body within the Netherlands and that in discussions with the United
Nations it has been confirmed that relations within the Kingdom are an internal
affair and these discussions can be done without the intervention of the United
Nations. At this point Mr Plasterk is confirming all above that the Dutch
government does not respect United Nations Charter and does not respect
democracy, and is confusing himself as island council members elections is not
same as a self-determination referendum choice of political equality, because
only the people can decide on a change of status as the case of 10-10-10. Not
the possibly bribed, corrupted, extorted local and Dutch politicians, decides
on the self-determination and human rights of the peoples. The peoples of Sint Eustatius and Bonaire
never opted for this imposed illegal status and all illegal democratic attempts
by the Dutch to legitimize this illegal status has failed up to now.

Last March 2017 Dutch
elections over 80% of the peoples of Statia and Bonaire rejected Mr Plasterk
and the Dutch second chamber politicians as their representatives. In their
respective 2014 and 2015 referendum the same rejection, which constituted
of a legitimate refutation of this
illegal public body status. For sure the
United Nations naturally will tell the visiting Dutch colonizer officials that
they should adhere to the set Charters and resolutions of the United Nations
that are a clear mandate and that there is an official translation of the
Charter of the UN in Dutch language to avoid any kind of misinterpretation. And
of course that this is an internal exercise as the whole world has adhere to
and the Dutch government duty is very simple as to respect, protect and comply.

What the United Nations never
would have thought was that these Dutch officials, as Mr Plasterk is stating,
would have their own interpretation of the United Nations Charter contrary to
these clear set human values and rights. To refresh Mr Plasterk and colleagues
memory that it is a shame that it came to our understanding that the Dutch
delegates helped by the Antillean elite(bribed, extorted?) in 1955 misinformed and manipulated the
United Nations General Assembly, resolution 945, in a controversial and
disputed vote, to discharge the Netherlands of its reporting obligations under
the condition that we, as colonized Antillean islands, will remain under the
protection of article 73. And this discharge can be revoked at any time in the
future, as this was a safeguard for us , the colonized Antillean islands to
come back and knock at the door of the United Nations if the need arise.

This
exercise of the United Nations was because the majority did not trust the Dutch
government which duty was to comply with political equality in accordance with
self-governance standards. Instead the Netherlands did set the Antilles in a
direction of self-destruction which became in effect on 10-10-10 with the
dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and Holland re-captured, annexed and
occupied the smaller in-defensive islands of Sint Eustatius, Bonaire and Saba
and started a new era of recolonization in the Caribbean region.

To finalize we would like to
remind Mr Plasterk and colleagues that recently in United Nations, General
Assembly, Special Committee on Decolonization C24 seminar reported that the
Netherlands holds colonies again in the Caribbean (BES-islands) and that the
United Nations has ruled that colonialism is a crime against humanity and that
the peoples of a colonized territory has the right to use all measures which
they desire to get out of colonialism and this is in accordance with United
Nations and international law.